Supernova From Experimentation At Fermilab

I wonder if Paul has an analyst who does not respect patient/psychiatrist confidentiality. If so, it would be interesting to talk to him.

Paul does not seem to care whether or not anybody pays attention to this thread. We ignored him for over a month, but he posted at least 3 times in a row anyway.

He does not seem to read other posts. At least he never addresses any comments/questions posted by others, nor does he object to digressions from the topic of the thread.

I wonder if he anticipated his demise and developed an expert system program to post for him as one final joke on denizens of the internet.
 
Exactly, thats why I said his posts almost seem like an advanced computer program was doing the responding. His posts are in context but just slightly (in some cases very) mechanical, almost alien. As if someone had read books about human communication but never actually tried it before, the posts are a fascinating read in a psycological sense.
 
I believe it's a javascript that reads the luminosity values from the fermi website and put out an ORANGE alert in co-operation with the department of homeland security.

Maybe we should Paul Dixon nominate for the Turing Test.

Pump up the Luminosity! :D :eek: :D Do it for the Children!
 
Last edited:
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this tragic concern.

A current review of experimentation from a medical perspective may be relevant to these concerns. A quote relevant to research in general is given as follows, "Serious mistakes are inevitable." (James H. Austin, M.D. (2003) Chase, Chance, and Creativity, MIT Press, Cambridge Massachusetts, p. 94, 92 -93.) Also in this connection, he cites Murphy's law, "if anything can go wrong, it will." concluding with O'Toole's commentatry on Murphy's law, "Murphy was an optimist." The author provides illustrative examples from his research effort.

In highest energy physics experimentation at Fermilab, where the record in high-energy physics experimentation is a clear record of the scientists having made an, "oversight in their equations," hence losing the laboratory and a significant chunk of real estate. Where the work now in progress approximates energies found some trillionths of a second after the point origin of the Universe, i. e., the Big Bang, the error may well entail the generation of Type Ia Supernova.

All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf,

All Best Wishes for the New Year!!!

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
Last edited:
Dear Fellows:
Has anyone heard this before?Don't mess with mother nature.I see no harm in studying cosmic phenomena, do we need to go as far as trying to reproduce it on any level?Trying to create a back hole really scares me.For what good reason does this need to be accomplished.Why don't these people with this ability try to figure a way to get into space without being connected to a controlled explosion.We have already come up with enough ways to turn mother earth to cinder.Lets work together and come up with something positive for the millenium.

Machiaventa speaks
 
Mystery Particle May Hold Clues To Universe

University of Melbourne physicists have helped discover a new state of matter that may shed light on the fabric of the universe.

The University team of 14 is part of a group of 300 physicists from 13 countries known as the 'Belle collaboration'. They have discovered a sub-atomic particle that they are having difficulty explaining and difficulty fitting with any current theory that attempts to describe matter.

Their research will be published in Physical Review Letters (in press).

"It could mean some of the standard and accepted theories on matter will need to be modified to incorporate some new physics," says University of Melbourne doctoral student in physics and Belle team member, Mr Craig Everton.

The sub-atomic particle they believe could be a meson. A meson by itself is a relatively obscure particle, but one which is made up of quarks, the basic building blocks of not just life, but everything that exists in this universe – as we know it.

This 'mystery meson' weighs about the same as a single atom of helium (a heavy-weight by sub-atomic particle standards) and exists for only about one billionth of a trillionth of a second before it decays to other longer-lived, more familiar particles.

"This may seem extremely short-lived by any human standard, but it is nearly an eternity for a sub-atomic particle this heavy," says Everton.

The team discovered their meson, technically known as X(3872), using a giant electron collider, or the High Energy Accelerator Research organisation (KEK) in Tsukuba, Japan.

This particular electron collider is three kilometres in circumference and acts as a meson factory, churning out what are known a 'B mesons' that are studied by physicists worldwide.

"We are in the business of studying quarks, as it is thought they hold the key to understanding many of the principle elements of how all matter in the universe (including life) is constructed," says Everton.

"Mesons have little direct bearing on life itself. They exist because they can," he says.

"But to study quarks we need to understand mesons, and X(3872) has got the international physics community both baffled and excited.

"Particle physics is now beginning to merge together the disciplines of cosmology and astrophysics and give new perspectives on stuff such as the evolution and construction of the universe and the nature of dark matter."

A normal meson particle is comprised of a quark and an antiquark that are held together by the 'color' force, or 'strong' force because it is the most powerful force in nature.

The large variety of meson particles that have been found to date reflect the many different ways that these combinations can be accomplished. The mass and the decay properties of X(3872), however, do not match theoretical expectations for any conceivable quark-antiquark arrangement.

Theoretical physicists around the world are considering a number of potential explanations. These include modifications to the theory of the color force, or the possibility that the X(3872) is the first example to be seen of a new type of meson, one that is made from four quarks. That is, two quarks and two antiquarks.

"This new sub-atomic particle will mean either the accepted 'Standard Model' for the explanation of matter needs to be modified to incorporate new physics, or it could be the first ever discovery of long sought after 4-quark particle. This would be a relief for many as it would confirm the Standard Model," says Everton.

The Belle discovery was recently confirmed by researchers with the CDF (Collider Detector at Fermilab) experiment at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois, home of the Tevatron, the world's largest electron collider.

The original news release can be found here.
 
buffys said:
...the feeling of an up and coming cult leader, Dr.Pauls statements are almost creepy in their antiseptic politeness and repetitive openings and closings. Not to mention the way very straight questions or requests for detail are not only, not addressed but sidestepped entirely.
I think we have a window into the mind of a wannabe cult leader. He seems to want to be followed, he gives out instructions for those willing to follow them, and he ignores any refutation of his views.

If a piece of evidence does not support him, he tosses it aside as if it does not exist. It becomes meaningless to him. In a position of power, most cult leaders eventually treat human lives the same way.
 
I'm still leaning toward him being a software program but cult leader in training is a very close second.
 
He is 68 years old. He may retire in 2 years. After that, we may never here from him again. And if he is right, we may never know what happened, we will be gone in a femtosecond. What a way to go - all the souls getting released to a new world. Remember, nothing can destroy a soul (atma)....:D
 
The significance here is Paul follows many in experimental physicist's dating back to the Manhattan project that simply admit there are unknowns when dealing with this subject. Frightening unknowns to say the least! And awareness is essential. Who is to say that the original "big bang" was not created in a lab 13-26 billion years ago on a planet of a previous universe? Anyway, continuing discussion of this aspect I have started on another forum, the mathematics should remain here, and should be ongoing in due diligence, and responsible for the lay person to view.

Will

Please join the other threads for speculation within this fine BBS and also at;

http://pub66.ezboard.com/fthepeanutsgangfrm57.showMessage?topicID=49.topic

Membership is required. This is not spam it is just multitasking in various communities of thought.
 
If the participants of this thread are as prepared to discuss thoughts beyond their own as Dr. Paul is, I'd prefer to discuss flower arrangement with my wall.
 
"If the participants of this thread are as prepared to discuss thoughts beyond their own as Dr. Paul is, I'd prefer to discuss flower arrangement(s) with my wall."

Good grief what angst!? Relax and take a breath, kick your feet up and let's see the length and width of your full spectrum. Surely it goes beyond simple number crunching to an exquisite reality and dimension we are yet to perceive. Or does it?

My point was that the science here should be separated from the speculation and both should proceed at their own speed, each having their own part in "a" larger picture. One based in psychology and social issues and the other in the calculus. A fine job has been done here but with little followup to the other significant factors it (the subject) brings up. Of an ongoing and evolving nature.
 
lol, Will, thank god you added that crucial "(s)"!

I'm usually pretty easy going but your choice of Dr. paul, of all the posters, to make your point makes me extremely wary of the bbs you linked. I'll check it out though, I suppose one never knows.

BTW - you mentioned membership, this is needed to post in most forums but usually not to read them. Is that the case there or is membership needed to browse as well?
 
No, it's an open forum to read - I just started the thread though, I enjoy the company in matters like these there. This is a nice BBS too - I just lurk allot and don't post much. :/ Enjoy!!
 
SUPERNOVA FROM EXPERIMENTATION AT FERMILAB

Many, many thanks to everyone for your prompt actions in this most critical and tragic concern.

The best answer is to find someone with connnections in the media world - television, radio, newspapers and to communicate to them your concerns in this connection. They can reach me at dixon@hawaii.edu if they would like to interview me or have a discussion regarding the generation of Supernova via high-energy physics experimentation at Fermilab, Brookhaven, CERN or elsewhere. This is world news of the utmost importance as there are limits to this form of experimentation in the penetration of the potential barrier towards de Sitter space in the Einstein de Sitter Universe as it is now termed.

All the children will thank you for your prompt actions on their behalf!

ALL BEST WISHES

Yours sincerely,

Paul W. Dixon, Ph.D.
Supernova from Experimentation
 
sci1101god_A1.gif



Scientists and engineers at CERN are working around the clock to build an upgraded particle accelerator. Scheduled to go online in 2006, the device is almost certain to detect the physicists' elusive quarry. Here, an engineer dismantles Delphi, one of the four detectors that nearly glimpsed the Higgs late last year. It is being removed to make room for the new machine.
 
Thanks to Dr. Dixon, there is more stuff on the net. Some samples:

Discussion of the Problem
James Blodgett


There is a risk that a physics experiment scheduled for 2005 may destroy the earth.

Recent developments in string theory suggest that mini-black holes may be created in the next generation of particle colliders. The possibility that the upcoming Heavy Ion Collider at CERN might produce mini-black holes is predicted by several articles cited in our "references" section. Go there. Their idea is that gravity might be much stronger than expected (We calculate up to 10^33 times stronger) at very small scales if the inverse square law becomes an inverse hypercube law at small scales due to extra dimensions. Extra dimensions at sub-atomic scales are a strong prediction of string theory. String theory is considered fairly plausible by many physicists. The authors who predict mini-black hole production expect these holes to evaporate via Hawking radiation. But Hawking radiation has never been seen nor tested. It is based on a quantum theory which is widely accepted, but also widely regarded as strange. If mini-black holes are created and do not evaporate they could implode the earth.

Collider risk assessments developed before the string theory results discounted mini-black holes but expressed concern about other hypothetical collider products such as strangelets or transition to a lower vacuum state which could have similar effects.

One reason not to worry is that cosmic rays in the energy level of the upcoming colliders have been hitting the earth (and the moon) for billions of years without catastrophic effect. But a mini-black hole created from a cosmic ray particle and an earth particle would retain the relativistic momentum of the cosmic ray, distributed over two particles. It would be moving rapidly, much faster than escape velocity from earth. In addition, there is reason to think it would not be very reactive. At mere atomic rather than subatomic scales gravity would be weak. A rapidly moving mini-black hole could pass through the earth like a neutrino and rapidly leave the vicinity. Even if another particle were accreted, this would result in relativistic momentum distributed over three particles, still too fast for capture by earth, which would require slowing below escape velocity from earth. The probability of accretion of enough particles to allow capture is low enough so that the entire estimated cosmic ray production of mini black holes over all of earth history is not enough to make capture of a single one probable. However, in a collider, the two particles are moving in opposite directions. Their energies more or less cancel--enough so that we have been able to estimate production of 158 mini black holes per year moving at less than escape velocity. These would pass repeatedly through earth. Even if relatively non-reactive, they could accrete matter after many passes until their orbits were within earth. Ultimately they would come to rest at the center of earth. Accretion would increase exponentially. Dangerous accretion schedules are plausible.

The probability of adverse results is the probability of one theory being true and another being false, or independently, of certain protective considerations not applying. This probability is difficult to compute. It is not likely, but seems less unlikely than previously identified risks. Any plausible risk estimate results in a very large negative expected value because of the billions of lives which would be lost.

What should be done about this? It seems clear that the CERN collider should not be turned on until physicists and mathematicians have done some very careful risk assessment. CERN has published a risk assessment (see our reference page) but it does not address two of our key issues. Independent evaluation and debate seem worthwhile.

There were similar debates about preceding colliders, 30 times less powerful, now turned on and apparently safe. These debates had unfortunate aspects, but encouraged fairly good risk assessments. Perhaps that can happen again. This is an important business, and will not happen automatically. The purpose of this website is to help encourage discussion of this issue.
 
More stuff:

Artificial black holes: on the threshold of new physicsby Michelle Thaller | csmonitor.com

PASADENA, CA – For several decades now, there has been a fundamental problem with modern physics. The problem is actually an embarrassment of riches: we have not one, but two systems that describe the universe remarkably well. One is quantum mechanics, which describes the rich and subtle behavior of waves and particles. The other system, general relativity combines space and time into one continuum, providing us with the best description of the movement of the planets and the expansion of the universe.

Scientists have realized that to truly understand the universe, we've got to make these two systems work together, even merge into a single, more accurate depiction of reality. But the two systems have not given up their independent identities easily. The challenge has been to find conditions in the universe where both the effects of quantum mechanics and general relativity are significant and measurable.

For this to be the case, you've got to pack a whole lot of mass (as general relativity mainly relates to gravity), into an extremely tiny volume (where quantum effects become important). Where do you think those conditions might exist? Fortunately, the universe has provided us with such a natural laboratory for fundamental physics: black holes.

Black holes are gravitational relics of dead stars. They are, quite literally, bottomless pits in space and time that are capable of swallowing any amount of material. Everything a black hole swallows gets compressed into an unimaginably tiny central region called a singularity. According to our current knowledge, this singularity is infinitely dense, and infinitely small. And if you think that doesn't make any sense, you're not alone.

Scientists have long viewed the central region of a black hole with the same kind of suspicion that early mariners held for regions of the map that read "there be monsters." It just can't be right. If the only thing we can say about the singularity is that it doesn't make any sense, then there must be a problem with the way we're trying to understand it. So there, deep in the hearts of black holes, may lie the clues to how quantum mechanics and general relativity dovetail together under extreme conditions.

Unfortunately, there's an intrinsic problem with actually observing what conditions near the center of a black hole are like. Black holes, most famously, have the ability to suck light itself into their maws, effectively cutting themselves off from the rest of our universe. The "point of no return" for light as it nears a black hole is called the event horizon, as no event can ever be observed taking place beyond it. There seems to be no way to get any information about what is happening inside a black hole, as no kind of signal can ever come out.

Or can it? In the 1970's, the well-known physicist Stephen Hawking proposed a way in which black holes radiate energy away, eventually "evaporating" completely. Over time, the black hole gradually leaks away all its energy and disappears in a final burst of radiation.

The final death throes of a black hole, scientists suspect, might be very illuminating indeed. Exactly how a black hole dies and what sort of information is carried in the Hawking radiation could tell us quite a bit about what the center of a black hole is really like.

But there are two major problems with observing the last gasp of a black hole. For one thing, the nearest black holes we know of are light-years away, making accurate measurements of Hawking Radiation nearly impossible. Secondly, black holes take a huge amount of time to evaporate, the time being proportional to their mass. Even relatively small stellar black holes would take longer than the current age of the universe to dissipate, and the monster black holes in the middle of galaxies may be the last things to exist in our universe, taking ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years to die away (sorry, I just have to do that sometimes. That is the actual estimate of how long a massive black hole will last).

So what do you do if you can't wait around that long? For the best chance to observe Hawking Radiation and evaporation, you'd want a black hole that was much closer than naturally occurring black holes, and much less massive. It's a common misconception that you have to have a huge amount of mass to create a black hole. Any amount of mass will do, as long as you cram it into a sufficiently small space. A super-massive black hole with the mass of a billion Suns might be the size of our Solar System, but the Earth could be a black hole too if you packed it into the volume of a marble. Even a person will do, although you'd have to cram them into the space occupied by a single electron.

This line of reasoning has led scientists to the inevitable: If we really want to observe black holes and how they radiate, we'll have to whip them up in our own laboratories. And that's exactly what we are on the threshold of being able to do. Now, there is no kind of technology with the ability to physically crush matter to black hole densities, but there's an easy away around that. Einstein showed us that matter and energy are equivalent, so you can also make a black hole by pushing a huge amount of energy into a tiny volume. For those kinds of experiments, there's an obvious choice: particle accelerators. And the next generation is just about to be unveiled.

Amazingly, scientists are becoming increasingly confident that they will be able to create black holes on demand, in quantity, using the new atom-smashers due to come online in the next five years. Some estimates suggest that the new Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at the European Center for Nuclear Research (CERN -the acronym is in French) will be able to create an average of one black hole each second. LHC will bombard protons and antiprotons together with such a force that the collision will create temperatures and energy densities not seen since the first trillionth of a second after the Big Bang. This should be enough to pop off numerous tiny black holes, with masses of just a few hundred protons. Black holes of this size will evaporate almost instantly, their existence detectable only by dying bursts of Hawking radiation.

What exactly are scientist looking for in the Hawking radiation? For one thing, it's a big mystery whether Hawking radiation contains any information about the particles that formed the black hole in the first place, or fell in later. Those particles had charge, spin, and other fundamental characteristics that may not have been erased by the black hole. Also, the exact manner in which a black hole dies may give us a view into higher dimensions in space. The most recent theories about the Big Bang and the earliest moments of our universe suggest that there were more than the four (three of space, one of time) we normally experience.

For some reason, the other dimensions didn't expand with our four, and remained "rolled up" at very small scales. These extra dimensions might still be important, and directly felt, in regions right around the central singularity of a black hole. In fact, these higher dimensions might solve the mystery of what a singularity really is. Instead of truly being an infinitively small and dense point, there might suddenly be a whole lot more room provided by extra dimensions that only act on tiny scales. Scientists already have ideas about how these dimensions would affect the temperature and intensity of Hawking radiation. Now all we have to do is power up the acclerator and put those theories to the test.

"But wait", I hear you say, "Has anyone considered that creating artificial black holes might not be the best idea?" The idea of creating black holes in the laboratory has to give one pause. I mean, how can anyone resist the urge to imagine future headlines like "Artificial Black Hole Escapes Laboratory, Eats Chicago" or some such thing? In reality, there is no risk posed by creating artificial black holes, at least not in the manner planned with the LHC. The black holes produced at CERN will be millions of times smaller than the nucleus of an atom; too small to swallow much of anything. And they'll only live for a tiny fraction of a second, too short a time to swallow anything around them even if they wanted to.

If it makes you feel any more comfortable, we're pretty sure that if the LHC can produce black holes, then so can cosmic rays, high-energy particles that smash into our atmosphere every day. There are probably a few tiny black holes forming and dying far above you right now. So I think we should all relax, fire up the Large Hadron Collider, and get ready for a view of the universe that we've never seen before.
 
Back
Top